Nearly half of voters think Nats have secret agenda

21 comments on “Nearly half of voters think Nats have secret agenda ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vto 1

   26 August 2008 at 5:23 pm

   Nearly all of voters will scream to the high heavens when the ETS burden smacks them heavily in the head.
2. Anita 2

   26 August 2008 at 5:26 pm

   I have wondered for a while whether National’s constant message about Labour social engineering agenda (blah blah homosexuality blah smacking blah schools blah hugs blah blah) was actually a deliberate inoculation strategy to blunt accusations that National has a secret agenda.

   It makes people cynical and disengaged, it means they’re unsurprised that National has dark secrets, it means they’ll vote for them anyway.

   Whatcha think?
3. higherstandard 3

   26 August 2008 at 5:27 pm

   But VTO the world will be saved I tell you saved !!

   My prediction is that in 20 years we’ll look back at a bigger scam than Y2K.
4. Phil 4

   26 August 2008 at 5:31 pm

   “It makes people cynical and disengaged, it means they’re unsurprised that National has dark secrets, it means they’ll vote for them anyway.”

   That was modus operandi for most voters loooong before C/T waded in.

   Michael Laws, in ‘The Demon Profession’ referred to MMP as the final opportunity our parliamentarians would ever get to bring back some dignity and respect to the occupation. I’d say 12 years on it’s fairly clear they’ve failed miserably.
5. randal 5

   26 August 2008 at 5:58 pm

   just listening to Maurice Williamson on rnz. he wont explain his statement. so it looks like the y have no agenda whatsoever. 2008 the ‘a4’ election
6. Anita 6

   26 August 2008 at 6:03 pm

   Phil,

   Was is a deliberate political tactic? I like to imagine things were once better than this 🙁
7. Ari 7

   26 August 2008 at 6:25 pm

   Michael Laws, in ‘The Demon Profession’ referred to MMP as the final opportunity our parliamentarians would ever get to bring back some dignity and respect to the occupation. I’d say 12 years on it’s fairly clear they’ve failed miserably.

   MMP has made some difference, but it’s a matter of aggressively supporting politicians who deserve dignity and respect and aggressively attacking those who don’t.

   Ultimately no matter how good a voting system is, it still succeeds or fails based on how people use it. A better system can make some real gains if it’s used with a decent amount of competency, but nothing’s a magic bullet on its own.

   The fact remains that MMP has proved much more representative of New Zealand than FPP did.
8. Dean 8

   26 August 2008 at 6:25 pm

   “Was is a deliberate political tactic? I like to imagine things were once better than this”

   Was Labour not campaigning on s59 reforms, civil unions and abolishment of referring legal matters to the privvy council a deliberate political tactic?

   Don’t misunderstand me, I actually have no problem with the first two and don’t care that Labour didn’t campaign on them. But it does beg the question, doesn’t it?

   It’s no good for people to whinge about National having a secret agenda when everyone on their preferred side of the political spectrum is just as guilty – with history and proof – of being exactly the same.
9. Dean 9

   26 August 2008 at 6:28 pm

   Ari:

   “The fact remains that MMP has proved much more representative of New Zealand than FPP did.”

   How many New Zealanders actually want the Greens or NZ First being the kingmakers?

   Sorry, your assertion fails. The devil is always in the details.
10. Anita 10

    26 August 2008 at 6:50 pm

    Dean,

    Was Labour not campaigning on s59 reforms, civil unions and abolishment of referring legal matters to the privvy council a deliberate political tactic?

    Labour included the abolition of appeal to the Privy Council in their 2002 pledge card, won the 2002 election and passed the law in 2003. I’m not sure why this myth hangs around so thoroughly as it’s so demonstrably wrong.

    The repeal of section 59 has long been a Green policy, and it was a Green Bill, it was drawn from the ballot and the debate began before the 2005 election, it was passed after the 2005 election. The bill was eventually supported by both Labour and National. Who do you believe should have campaigned on what and when?

    Civil Unions was a conscience vote for most (all?) parties including both Labour and National. I don’t see how a party can campaign on something which will be a conscience vote.
11. Dean 11

    26 August 2008 at 7:44 pm

    Anita:

    “Labour included the abolition of appeal to the Privy Council in their 2002 pledge card, won the 2002 election and passed the law in 2003. I’m not sure why this myth hangs around so thoroughly as it’s so demonstrably wrong.”

    Believe it or not, I’m having trouble finding the contents of the 2005 pledge card online so I’ll take your word for it and stand corrected.

    It’s a pity Labour had to pass retrospective law to validate their spending on this though, isn’t it? Would you call it “courageous corruption”?

    “The repeal of section 59 has long been a Green policy, and it was a Green Bill, it was drawn from the ballot and the debate began before the 2005 election, it was passed after the 2005 election. The bill was eventually supported by both Labour and National. Who do you believe should have campaigned on what and when?”

    Sorry, Anita, but Clark herself when questioned on this before the election said that she thought it’d be trying to defy human nature.

    Flip flop, secret hidden agenda, Slippery Clark – no amount of spin from you or anyone else will ever hide this. She lied to the people of New Zealand. If she really thought it would defy human nature then she would have voted against it. She didn’t – therefore, shes a liar. Once again.

    “Civil Unions was a conscience vote for most (all?) parties including both Labour and National. I don’t see how a party can campaign on something which will be a conscience vote.”

    I’m sure you don’t.

    How about we make everything a conscience vote? Why wasn’t the ETS made a conscience vote? The answer is that Labour are determined to rort the system, and people like you continue to defend it.
12. Anita 12

    26 August 2008 at 8:10 pm

    Dean,

    Creation of Supreme Court

    2002 pledge card (2002 pledge card, 2002 election, 2003 passed legislation) not 2005. Actually, I shall correct myself, it was in their manifesto, not sure about their pledge card. Sorry, I’ve retyped this so many times it’s got a bit fuzzy 🙂 I think I usually cite the republicans.

    Section 59 repeal

    Labour voted for the first reading before the 2005 election. I have no idea whether they campaigned on it or not.

    Given that both National and Labour voted for the Bill, does it bother you that neither campaigned on it? Or only that Labour didn’t.

    Conscience Votes

    Anita: I don’t see how a party can campaign on something which will be a conscience vote.

    HS:I’m sure you don’t.

    How can a party campaign on something which is explicitly not party policy? That is the point of something being a conscience vote.

    Last year a number of National MPs supported an attempt to make abortion harder to access, and a number voted against it. Do you think that means National should have campaigned on an anti-abortion platform? Or a pro-abortion one? Or what?

    Blurring the edges

    The answer is that Labour are determined to rort the system, and people like you continue to defend it.

    Do I? I’m pretty sure I was pointing out that you were factually inaccurate, your logic was inconsistent and you weren’t crediting the Greens with their win on the section 59 repeal.

    I think you’ll find me criticising Labour’s approach to climate change one thread over 🙂 As I said in another thread today; why do all of us on the left get lumped together?
13. Anita 13

    26 August 2008 at 8:16 pm

    Dean, sorry I srcewed up your name. Tired brain and fingers today.
14. Dean 14

    26 August 2008 at 10:28 pm

    Anita,

    “Given that both National and Labour voted for the Bill, does it bother you that neither campaigned on it? Or only that Labour didn’t.”

    National has nothing to do with it. They’ve been swallowing dead rats aplenty in the last few months, but it’s a pity that you don’t see the correlation between National and Labour.

    Labour have swallowed just as many; they’ve just been far more astute at it. And do you remember Key saying anything along the lines that a reform to s59 would be like trying to defy human nature?

    Let’s face it: on this subject, Clark and Labour are just plain liars. There are many other examples of National being the same, but this one is Clarks and Clarks only.

    “How can a party campaign on something which is explicitly not party policy? That is the point of something being a conscience vote.”

    Clark and Labour have NEVER whipped their MPs to vote in a conscience vote along party lines?

    You must be joking.

    “Do I? I’m pretty sure I was pointing out that you were factually inaccurate, your logic was inconsistent and you weren’t crediting the Greens with their win on the section 59 repeal.”

    The Greens didn’t “win” anything. They were needed to make up the numbers.

    “I think you’ll find me criticising Labour’s approach to climate change one thread over As I said in another thread today; why do all of us on the left get lumped together?”

    Because they all gloss over the indefensible, just as the right do. In your case, you completely ignored the restrospective validation point I raised. You can pretend you didn’t see it, or that it’s been gove over many times before to your satisfaction, but ultimately it’s just that whole “courageous corruption” deal that you on the left don’t want to face. Because you need Labour and Labour needs you.

    Face of modern politics? Reality of an MMP environemnt? In my opinion it’s utterly pathetic.
15. r0b 15

    27 August 2008 at 12:06 am

    Because they all gloss over the indefensible, just as the right do. In your case, you completely ignored the restrospective validation point I raised.

    What’s your problem with the retrospective validation Dean? Why do you think it was a bad thing? Do you actually understand the legal situation at all?
16. Dean 16

    27 August 2008 at 12:31 am

    “What’s your problem with the retrospective validation Dean? Why do you think it was a bad thing? Do you actually understand the legal situation at all?”

    I expect you’re going to pull out the whole “but everyone else did it” argument here. In fact, I bet you’re going to pass it off as being just by the by and quite mundane.

    Which of course it might be if you don’t count the things Labour said about the auditor general prior to doing so.

    Or the scale and purpose.

    rOb, I’ve come to expect that you’ll defend Labour under any circumstances whatsoever anytime, because you see them as the greater good. This example is no exception.

    We both know that if it had been the baby eating National party doing the same thing you’d be calling for their immediate resignation. Let’s not pretend here. You’re as partisan as Pinochet on this blog, and you know it.

    Can you please move along while those with any kind of impartiality may or may not choose to debate the subject? Cheers.
17. r0b 17

    27 August 2008 at 12:38 am

    Does that mean you can’t answer my questions Dean? Didn’t think so. but don’t let your ignorance get in the way of a good rant.
18. Kevyn miller 18

    27 August 2008 at 2:05 am

    If Helen is going to make “trust” the corner stone of her re-election campaign there are few points that need to be addressed.

    1. Actually deliver the funds that each region was promised from the regionally distrubuted 5 cents a litre tax introduced before the last election, especially to Christchurch which is rapidly becoming the pothole capital of New Zealand.

    2. Don’t brag about the biggest roading program this country has ever seen when it is only happening in Wellington and the former province of Auckland. Especially don’t do this if you do nothing to help Marlborough District Council avoid borrowing $1.3 million to pay for the repairs to it’s storm damaged roads when that regions roads are providing the land transport fund with $12m a year more than the region is receiving from the fund.

    3. Remember the promise you made to Manawatu to pay for the flood damage to their roads and bridges? You didn’t say that the money would be clawed back at the first opportunity. Manawatu is now only receiving 40% of the money it is paying into the land transport fund.

    4. Fess up that you stuffed up with the road safety strategy and that, thanks to high fuel prices suppressing traffic growth the target should have been reduced to 240 instead of being left at 300. Of course, you can’t apologise for the 1,000 avoidable deathes in the years since the NRSC told you how to cut the road toll to 150 (now 120 for the above reason) unless you actually implement the strategy, with a vengeance. Promise to raise the driving age, lower the algohol limit, increase funding for enforcement of serious offences by $60m and ringfence $500m a year of Transit’s funding for safety improvements, although that last amount really needs to be increased by 35% to cover the increase in the construction price index.

    Not that National is likely to call you out on any of these points. Act might, but who listens to them. Of course, one of the responsible NRSC members that you declined to reappoint might speak out but that’s unlikely since that haven’t done that already. The one most likely to have spoken out is dead, killed while cycling home from work a few months ago, at a notorious cycle accident black spot. How’s that for irony.
19. Brett Dale 19

    27 August 2008 at 8:40 pm

    Half of voters may think they have a secret agenda, but I bet half of all voters will end up voting National in this election.
20. Stephen 20

    29 August 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Out of nowhere comes Brett with a ‘good point’! Maybe not quite half, but hey.

Links to post

1. Nats are losing control of their narrative « Jafapete’s Weblog: posted on 26 August 2008 at 5:25 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS